I had to disappear for a few days to do some reclusive things, but I’m back in time for the holiday. That’s today, National Fourth Amendment Defense Day. I don’t think there will be any half-price sales at Bed Bath & Beyond to mark the occasion, but you can contribute to the festivities by phoning your Senator. Lambert explains:
Have you read the Fourth Amendment lately?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The Fourth Amendment, along with the other amendments to the Constitution that form our Bill of Rights, came into effect on December 15, 1791.
The Framers of our Constitution — and the voters in the states that passed the Bill of Rights — understood how tyranny worked, and they took a dim view of King George breaking into their homes, rummaging through their desks, opening their mail, and reading whatever the Fuck he wanted, whenever the fuck he wanted to, without going to a judge for a warrant, and without having to explain what he expected to find when the warrant was executed. The Framers had already had a bellyful of kings.
The Framers understood tyranny, even though they didn’t have computers in 1791. And if the Framers had computers, it’s plain as day they wouldn’t have wanted King George breaking into their hard disks, rummaging through their desktops, or reading their data—whether the data was email, documents on your hard disk, your telephone calls, your Google searches, or the sites that you surf.
Tyranny is tyranny, no matter the technology.
So it’s simple and crystal clear: The Fourth Amendment means that the government doesn’t get to read your data—to the Framers, “paper”—without a warrant.
It’s simple. And anybody who tries to make it complicated is trying to fuck you.
Well, surprise! The Democrat leadership is trying to fuck you.
As Glenn Greenwald notes, “Obama is conspicuously missing as his party is on the verge of enacting a radical bill to give the President vast new warrantless eavesdropping powers and retroactive amnesty to an entire lawbreaking industry. ”
Let’s see: Obama watches without complaint as the President’s police state powers are ratified, meanwhile anticipating his own election to the office on the backs of fanatical believers who think he can do no wrong, and at the head of a party that has already subordinated its entire national machinery to his personal campaign. Why do I think this is not a coincidence?
Oh well who cares if no majority Caucasian country in the history of the western world has ever nominated a black man before. It’s no biggie, some dude’s wife is much more monumental.
Just in case you’re wondering why women like me are ready to fight tooth and nail to keep these assholes from taking over the party.
I’ve said it before and I expect to say it many more times over the next months: if Obama succeeds in taking over the Democratic Party, then the Democratic Party will no longer be the party of women’s rights.
The Astroturf King is getting lazy. I guess he spent so much money buying up the netroots for Obama that now he’s down to outsourcing canned scripts to Mumbai.
This comment is showing up in moderation queues throughout the Hillary-supporting blogosphere:
When I watched her speech this morning, I felt something genuine in her voice. When she talked about dedicating her life to making America a better place, you could tell that was her deepest conviction.
She seemed a little hesitant endorsing Obama, but she also seemed very confident when she said we cannot afford to allow the Republicans to hold The White House for another 4 years or more.
In the end, I think Hillary’s decision to support Obama was what she feels is the best course for our country to follow. I’ve supported her so far, so there’s no reason for me to doubt her now.
Let’s take back The White House for the Democrats and make America a better place.
Har! The name attached to the comment is different depending on the blog; the pattern seems to be to choose the name of a regular commenter.
What I love so much about this comment is that it was clearly designed by men to appeal to what they think women want. It’s like those web themes “designed for women” that look like boxes of douche — all pink and lavender with pictures of flowers on them. See, women don’t think; we feel. We emote. We listen to Hillary’s voice and pay attention to what we feel she’s feeling. And then we go right out and buy that douche so we, too, can feel feminine and fresh.
The Obama camp just issued the following statement on Hillary Clinton’s endorsement.
“Obviously, I am thrilled and honored to have Senator Clinton’s support. But more than that, I honor her today for the valiant and historic campaign she has run. She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams.
Oh, now he’s discovered sexism? Now he’s discovered women’s rights?
Let’s review. This is the guy who:
Exploited 15 years of misogynistic wingnut smears against Hillary throughout his campaign;
Never once reprimanded his supporters for their misogyny;
Never once acknowledged or denounced the sexism in the campaign;
Never once praised Hillary’s historic achievement — until now, when she’s conceded;
Delivered a major address on rooting out bigotry in the black community but never once mentioned sexism;
Consistently avoided any acknowledgement of sexism or of women’s rights in his speeches;
Spent 20 years in the company of woman-haters like Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, who refuse to acknowledge that Hillary and other women face obstacles;
Echoed the sentiments of Wright and Pfleger when he told a reporter that Hillary was a “conventional” candidate;
Never once denounced or expressed regret for the vicious personal insults of Hillary expressed by his good friends, Wright and Pfleger;
Employed a campaign manager who ridiculed Hillary for “crying” in New Hampshire “about her hair”:
Consistently used sexist language to refer to Hillary — claws, tea parties, periodic moods, feeling down, “likable enough,” etc.
Strode into his Iowa victory party to the strains of “99 Problems But A Bitch Ain’t One”;
Gave Hillary the finger when she bested him in debate;
Praised anti-feminist John Roberts to the skies for his “brilliance” and would have voted to confirm him if a PR adviser hadn’t convinced him it would look bad on his resume;
Stated that women in the pro-choice movement have been guilty of not treating abortion as the serious moral issue that it is;
Addresses women as “cutie” and “sweetie” — even Senator Barbara Boxer.
That’s just off the top of my head.
And now, suddenly, he’s Mr. Feminist. Oh for fuck’s sake. How stupid does he think we are?
As for this bit:
“She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams.”
Actually, what women everywhere now know is that this country still isn’t ready for a woman President. That if a woman runs for President, she doesn’t stand a fucking chance. No matter how brilliant and capable she is, no matter how many people vote for her, the media will crucify her and some shady half-ass snake oil salesMAN will be handed the nomination instead.
Fuck off, Obama. Just fuck off.
P.S. I need the video of Hillary’s speech today. Who has it?
There is no limit to the man’s hypocrisy. Butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth.
This is Obama responding to a reporter’s question about the alleged Michelle tape:
“We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in emails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it,” Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. “That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.”
This from the man whose campaign — not two weeks ago — was furiously pushing the grotesque RFK assassination smear against Hillary. Calling up reporters, circulating quotes out of context, spreading the lies, fanning the flames, pumping the story until it had legs.
And he’s done the same goddamn thing the whole campaign. He’s like Humbert Humphrey, only worse. Humphrey had that whole nice guy shtick going, too. Nice guy, a good guy, your friendly neighbor from Minnesota, always taking the “high road,” as Hube called it, always talking about the politics of decency — while in the background his campaign was slinging every goddamn bit of dirt it could find or create. Pure unadulterated mud. Humphrey also had the corrupt Chicago machine backing him, and a nomination stolen from the more popular candidate.
But Obama’s younger than Hube was, and better-looking, and hip. Poor old Hube didn’t have masses of young fanbots talking about swirling vortexes of love and pink fuzzy hearts. Nobody ever painted a picture of Hubert Humphrey emerging from the Willamette River with roses cascading at his feet and a white horse/unicorn/pony galloping behind him.
And that, my friends, is the difference. It’s all surface shine. All packaging, modern and slick and insidious. Barack Obama is simply the new, millenial version of Hubert Humphrey. He’s Hubert Humphrey with sex appeal. He’s the focus-group-tested, Madison Avenue version. He’s who the Hube would have been if he’d been designed by Ogilvy & Mather.
I feel the way so many of my elders felt in ‘68, after Bobby was killed (and Hillary, not Obama, is Bobby’s heir), after McCarthy was robbed, after their last chance to be represented was torn from them and they were stuck with….Humphrey.
Hubert. Fucking. Humphrey.
(Oh, hi, everybody. I’m almost back! A humongous thanks to everyone who has helped and donated, which I’m going to write more about in the morning along with an update. But first, tonight, I had to eject this very bitter pill that was rising up in my throat and suffocating me. Projectile vomiting on the blog, you might say.)
I still don’t have regular internet access and I don’t watch TV, so I’m out of the loop. But I hear things — weird, disturbing, almost unbelievable things — and so I’m grabbing a few minutes here on my Dad’s computer before a family birthday party for this brief announcement:
When I wrote this post on Democratic party history back in April, I was not calling for the assassination of Barack Obama. Just thought I’d get that out there now before the Gestapo shows up at here at the house.
Sorry to post and run, but I’ll leave you with something to think about: if the collusion between the Obama campaign and the media continues like this, will that pose the most severe threat to free speech in this country since a) the Alien and Sedition Acts, b) the 1917 Espionage Act, c) the McCarthy era, or d) the Patriot Act of 2001? Discuss amongst yourselves.
There is no question that a line was crossed yesterday, by the media and the so-called progressive blogosphere. Personally, it has put me on the fence: if Senator Obama becomes the nominee, do I take a break from politics until November or do I actively campaign against him?
I’ve been wrestling with the same issue, but I know now what my answer is. Barack Obama has run the dirtiest, most dishonest campaign I’ve ever seen from a Democrat on the national level. His mob-like supporters terrify me. And his media enablers are catastrophically dangerous. They must be stopped. Must be.
Update #2: Vastleft has penned the definitive self-diagnostic tool for anyone who thinks Hillary’s RFK remark was in any way ominous: Are You Fucked In The Head? (The bloggers over at Corrente obviously have internet connectivity and everything so they can actually post on this mess. I bet they’re elite latte-drinking types who live in cities and don’t have to perform prayer chants in front of a satellite dish just to get their email. Damn their eyes.)
Hey, everybody. Just checking in here from my father’s computer. The news is funny, eh? “Barack Obama begins search for running mate” sez the New York Times. Does that actually work? To just assume you’re going to be the nominee even though most people voted for the other person? Since the other person in this case is female, it just might. That is, after all, the time-tested method for dealing with an uppity woman. Just ignore her. Or if you have to pay attention to her, laugh. Roll your eyes. Silly woman, don’t you understand you’re not wanted here? This is men’s work.
It reminds me for all the world of those earnest young women back in the 19th century who petitioned to be admitted to university, patiently demonstrating that they’d mastered Greek and Latin and calculus and Newtonian physics and surely, surely they were qualified to embark on higher studies? Surely they would be admitted? Yes, please? And the university deans just patted their heads and sent them back home.
Hillary’s like that. She knows everything, or as close to everything as you’re going to get with a politician. She’s the smartest, most qualified, most capable person up for the job. And most Democrats agree; that’s why they voted for her. But the Boyz just keep pointing and laughing. Silly woman, don’t you understand you’re not wanted here?
Via Taylor Marsh comes word that Obama is already offering reasons why he’s going to lose in Kentucky (Fox News, chain mails, stupidity), including this gem:
“What it says is that I’m not very well known in that part of the country,” Obama said. “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.”
Taylor remarks:
No, this is not a made-up quote from The Onion. He actually believes this, apparently. Problem is, a quick glance at a U.S. map reveals that Illinois actually borders Kentucky and is clearly closer than Arkansas.
Is he really this geographically challenged? Of course the logic of his thinking is plain enough: Kentucky = white racist hicks = Arkansas. Chicago = My Kinda Town. That Chicago is in Illinois, and that Illinois and Kentucky actually touch, are meaningless details; in Obama’s mind, Kentucky might as well be in another galaxy. (I wonder if Illinois residents realize that he’s only representing Chicago — or at least the non-Kentucky-contaminated part of Illinois — in the Senate?)
Mostly I think he just doesn’t care. Yeah, yeah, the Great Lakes are in Oregon and Arkansas is next to Kentucky and there are 57 states, and geez, can we just stop now and declare me the nominee?
Yesterday afternoon I was extremely honored to participate in a conference call with Sen. Clinton and a bunch of other pro-Hillary bloggers, thanks to the good offices of Peter Daou, the Clinton campaign’s internet guru. The Senator was warm, gracious, and every bit as sharp and energetic as ever. (How does the woman do it?) Her voice was raw from talking all day, but that didn’t slow her down.
I’ve been away from the computer for most of the past 24 hours, so I’m just now sitting down to file my report, as it were, with you all. Let me just run quickly through the key points and highlights of the call:
First of all, Sen. Clinton sounded absolutely, 100% committed to staying in this race. I got no sense of her giving up. In fact, she spent several minutes thanking us, the blogging community, for continuing to make the case for her with the public.
Her new ad running in Oregon captures her current attitude about the situation: the pundits and Sen. Obama can say she’s out, but she’s still very much in — and still working hard to win votes.
She said, “Finally! We have acknowledgement that we are actually ahead in the popular vote!” And she feels that she’s on track to continue to perform very well on that count through the remaining contests.
She gave us a quick rundown of the argument she’s making to the super-delegates: it’s the map, not the math. Her strength is in the swing states, boding extremely well for the general election. Obama’s pattern of support, in contrast, makes him a weak bet in the general. (See Bringiton for a masterful presentation of this argument.) The supers need to exercise their judgment to pick the strongest candidate — and that’s Hillary.
She’s absolutely committed to getting Florida and Michigan seated, and commented on the irony of the Democratic Party disenfranchising its own members in those states.
The May 31 DNC rules committee meeting is very important, and the more press and public attention we can develop around that, the better. (I’m scrambling around for links to the various demonstrations being planned — I think there will be delegations from Florida and Michigan as well as women’s groups.)
She said how much she regretted all the vitriol and hostility and sexism that’s been thrown at her supporters. She herself is impervious to it by now, but it distresses her that so many of her supporters have been subjected to this. And she took time again to thank all of us for standing up for her and being courageous.
This just in! I was about to finish up this post when I saw that Taylor Marsh recorded the whole conference call, so you can listen for yourselves. Cool! By all means, give it a listen. You’ll see what a bundle of inspiration Hillary is — smart, knowledgeable, energetic, down-to-earth, warm — and how frankly thrilled all us bloggers were to talk to her. Huge kudos to Peter Daou for organizing the call and to the Senator herself for reaching out to us.
Apparently, according to FOX News, the Obama campaign has hired 400 bloggers to influence the public discourse and sway Hillary voters to “remember we are all Democrats”, to give up Clinton’s cause, and to become dutiful citizens of the Obama Nation.
Also, it’s been noted by several HillBuzz readers, that Obama volunteers are being told to ratchet down the anti-Hillary hate, because someone in the campaign realizes Hillary Clinton supporters are not very likely to support Obama if he becomes the nominee.
Okay, I lied. I’m not really welcoming Axelrod’s latest cadre of paid “opinion shapers.” I’ll just be handing out these convenient laminated Pocket Guides (note the blue section) and gently shutting the door in their faces:
What’s that? We’re all Democrats? Oh, that’s nice. Okay, you have a nice day, you hear? Bye-bye! Thanks so much! Bye! Mm, you too! Bye! Thanks again! Okay, bye now! Bye!
Obama, speaking at the Westin St. Francis in San Francisco, raised eyebrows Monday at a fundraiser for Sen. Barbara Boxer when, as we reported, the Illinois Senator described his Democratic colleague from California as “a fighter, a leader, a charmer, a cutie.”
The remark “set off a lot of murmuring,” said one Democratic strategist in attendance, “among a lot of very strong powerful women around Boxer there who were offended.”
The descriptive of a powerful feminist senator raised “a strategic question: is (Obama) ready for prime time? You don’t call a U.S. senator a ‘cutie,’” said the strategist, whose take was echoed by others.
Actually you do, if you’re Barack Obama. U.S. senators, journalists, pharmacists, factory workers – they’re all “sweeties” or “cuties” to Obama. As long as they’re female, that is. (Can you imagine him as President? Look out, Angela Merkel.)
What the hell is this man’s problem? He’s my age — mid-40s — and there is no excuse for this. He should know damn well not to talk to or about women in that manner. It reminds me of my first job back in 1980, when the male boss called all the women in the office “honey” and expected them to fetch him coffee. Workin’ 9 to 5…
But let me get back to that Boxer article from last year. Listen to this next bit (still quoting the unnamed strategist):
From an opposition research point of view, this marked “a swing and a miss” by Team Hillary: “It would have been easy to get the blogosphere and make sure Fox News and Drudge Report knew about (the quote), and watch it go .. because in a few months, nobody could have gotten away on it.”
The irony.
See, way back in February of 2007, people like me and that strategist and the women surrounding Sen. Boxer and probably the journalist who wrote that article — we all thought that something like publicly referring to a female senator as a “cutie” would be an automatic foul. We thought that public expressions of sexism would be frowned upon.
Thousands of Hillary Nutcrackers later, we know better. “Cutie” and “sweetie” are the least of it.
But the pushback is here. People are pissed. The premature coronation of Obama this past week — after Hillary won Indiana, after she won West Virginia in a blowout, when she’s sitting on the lead in the popular vote — was the last straw. Since the fat-cat politicians and pundits don’t give a good goddamn about sexism, we’ll just have to raise a stink ourselves. Just us chickens (and some enlightened roosters).
Cynthia Ruccia and Kimberly Myers went on Bill O’Reilly last night to explain why the treatment of Hillary is a deal-breaker for women and why they plan to leave the Democratic party in protest. The tubes have been burning up ever since with people trying to find out how they can contact Ruccia and help out. People have even been emailing me, and I didn’t know anything about it until this morning. HillBuzz has the name of the group and the contact info.
Steve Corbett is a radio host in Pennsylvania who apparently reached his own breaking point yesterday, and is now launching Operation Turndown to let the DNC know that we’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore!
Riverdaughter has a terrific round-up post this morning with more suggestions on what we can do right now make our voices heard: Friday: Fast II and Call to Action.
ABC’s Political Punch reports on “female supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton who are angry — at the Democratic Party, at the Obama campaign, or at the general situation that sees their candidate facing tough times, in their view, in part because of sexism.”
I’m glad our collective voices are starting to make an impact. But the amazing thing is that the guest blogger behind this piece, Rick Stein, talks about the whole phenomenon like it’s something through the Hubble Telescope that’s so far away and vague and weird that nobody can be sure what the hell it is. Dig it:
I confess to being a man who has not always seen what his female friends and colleagues see as sexist in this race. What do you think? Has Sen. Clinton faced particular (unfair) challenges because of her gender? More than Sen. Obama has faced because of his race?
Is it humanly possible to be that oblivious? I mean, if Stein were a tree sloth or something, sure. Tree sloths sleep a lot and I get the impression they’re not all that plugged in to the news. But how can any sentient non-tree sloth American be this clueless? We’re talking Hillary Nutcrackers, people. “Iron my shirt.” An anti-Hillary 501c called C.U.N.T. Another one called “Stop running for President and make me a sandwich.”
Oh, and if you even mention any of this, you’re either silly or a bad person.
Actually, none of that would probably help Tree Sloth Rick. I suspect he’s like the Obamabots who read all that stuff and still clog up my moderation queue with inane comments about how sexism doesn’t exist, how there hasn’t been any misogyny in this campaign, etc., etc.. No idea what we’re talking about. Hubble Telescope. Mysterious smudges of light.
Edwards endorses Obama. Why today? To distract attention from Obama’s humiliating defeat in West Virginia, of course. Anything to keep people from noticing that Hillary is winning.
